From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,29d8139471e3f53e
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!q26g2000vbn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Cyrille <comar@eu.adacore.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Preventing type extensions
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 08:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <a9a93110-c5a1-41cb-b36a-0e8da7f4cacf@q26g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
References: <87iq2bfenl.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <874odv9npv.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <87y6b7cedd.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <66a3704c-54f9-4f04-8860-aa12f516134b@t3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
 <87d3sib44t.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <134q4k2ly2pf4$.17nlv1q6q5ivo.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4c8dec8e$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <epkb3s8dfxk0$.1qdvo5vg2fsgh.dlg@40tude.net>
 <8f6cceFrv2U1@mid.individual.net>
 <135a7dc9-3943-45e4-884b-3cc6bce3db0a@q18g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
 <i6m45c$gjp$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <c75a88c5-1d51-4342-904a-743e41adeb7f@k9g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>
 <i7afm3$dn8$1@news.eternal-september.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.99.106.125
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1285081365 2839 127.0.0.1 (21 Sep 2010 15:02:45
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:02:45 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: q26g2000vbn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.99.106.125;
 posting-account=bNhsVwoAAAB6XmNPWgYcbUm6npIwL2C4
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.10)
 Gecko/20100914 Firefox/3.6.10 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14173
Date: 2010-09-21T08:02:44-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sep 21, 4:32 pm, "J-P. Rosen" <ro...@adalog.fr> wrote:

> No, since the class-wide operation can contain a single (re-dispatching)
> call.

where does this rule come from?

>  What's the gain? We have concentrated the dispatching into a
> single subprogram. This subprogram can be tested in isolation, and
> stubbed in all users. Otherwise, under the "big case" model, every user
> must be tested for all branches of the "big case". In a sense, it is the
> opposite effect of inlining. Take the arguments against inlining, you'll
> have the justification for this strategy.

which strategy? you seem to be referring implicitly to a document that
I'm not aware of. I'm not aware of any "serious" arguments against
inlining which is simply a compiler technique for improving
performance.


> >> Cyril, will you come to the workshop? That would be very valuable.
>
> > No, I don't plan to go. Note that on our side, we are already working
> > on our own set of recommendations... maybe we should try to find a
> > vehicle more permanent than a conference to make a community effort on
> > this...
>
> The workshop at the conference is the starting point for a document that
> will define appropriate restrictions ("Fairfax profile"). Starting such
> an effort during an Ada conference seems absolutely appropriate.

It seems a bit early, DO-178C hasn't been published yet and people
participating to such an effort will need time to access it once it is
published and understand it.